issue83 【Victors小组】第十次作业 by baiyu_2005

baiyu_2005UID: 2255194

"Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people."

I mostly agree with the above assertion that the government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas no matter whether it is remote or near. Because it is not only instant profits that government chased in its governing but also, or maybe more important, the determination and ability to guard sovereignty on its own land which usually is showed through its publicity owned wilderness area preserving and the potential value the areas may hold.

Admitted, the governments actually have to give up some preserving under some extremely hard situation for achieving more prominent goals. The purchasing of the state of Alaskan is a proper example to show this point. Until now maybe a large number of people still regard this purchase is an absolute victory no matter in terms of politic or diplomacy. However increasing number of evidences tell us this 20,000,000 dollars sale is a expedience for the Russia because it was so lager  its land is that the Russia lacked the enough funds to defend its territory, especially the remote Alaskan. So if it is for higher and more emergence country need, the government should sacrifice some publicly owned wilderness areas preserving.

However, in more situations the governors face just several economical problems when it comes to the carry out the preserving policy. For example, newly report in China show that there are a lot of functionaries who works in remote west of China face serious financial difficulties some places even do not could supply enough nutrient foods and safe shelters. However, all these difficulties would be overwhelmed by the sovereign for a country which supports the topic theme.

And moreover, there is more important value except the economical value. Like the nature reserve of the three rivers’ head source (TRH) which is the headspring of three main rivers in China, Yellow River, Yangtze River, and Lantsang River. When we just consider its pure instant economic value it is may be a barren land compared with plain, however it is the area that controls almost half of Chinese water resource and some rare species which have been extinction in other place. So when we add up all its value no matter how little number of people live there it is a treasure for the country that deserve preserving.

Even if there are not any other values now, we could not assert that the land will be always valueless. Take the Antarctic area as an example, when people first went there, the entire continent is just a huge adventure park for human beings until recent people find fluent petrol reserve under the thick ice cap. So maybe today we give up some seeming sterile land and in the future it is proved that it has prominent value.

To sum up, although the remote and little residents-hold areas may lack immediate economic value in most time it is also deserver the government governing because its responsibility for the country’s sovereign and the potential value the land hold and will hold.

菲子UID: 2311527

"Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people."

I mostly agree with the above assertion that the government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas no matter whether it is remote or near. Because it is not only instant profits that government chased(should chase, better?) in its governing but also, or maybe more important, the determination and ability to guard sovereignty on its own land which usually is showed（shown） through its publicity owned wilderness area preserving and the potential value the areas may hold. 看看我划的主干，这句话是不是说得意思还不够完整？Because the government should chase not only the instant profits in its governing, but also ... 但是这一段总体的意思还是比较好，简单概括了以下的要点..

Admitted（admittedly）, the governments actually have to give up some preserving under some extremely hard situation for achieving more prominent goals. 啊？怎么这么快就转到放弃保护上去了？既然你在开篇就申明了保护荒地的重要性，这一段应该接着完整得论述一下保护荒地的重要性表现在哪里，这样思维不至于转换不过来。老美的思维没有这么快。The purchasing of the state of Alaskan is a proper example to show this point. Until now maybe a large number of people still regard this purchase is an absolute victory no matter in terms of politic or diplomacy. However increasing number of evidences tell us this 20,000,000 dollars sale is a expedience for the Russia because it was so lager  its land is that the Russia lacked the enough funds to defend its territory, especially the remote Alaskan. 对于例子的分析不足So if it is for higher and more emergence country need, the government should sacrifice some publicly owned wilderness areas preserving.

However, in more situations the governors face just several economical problems when it comes to the carry out the preserving policy. （你上一段也跟钱联系起来了，两段的区别只是在于钱花在哪里，我没看出来两者有转折的关系）For example, newly report in China show that there are a lot of functionaries who works in remote west of China face serious financial difficulties some places even do not could supply enough nutrient foods and safe shelters. However, all these difficulties would be overwhelmed by the sovereign for a country which supports the topic theme.没理解这段话的意思，你是把西部当作publicly owned wilderness area了吗？对于这个词的意思你最好再去查一查。

And moreover, there is more important value except the economical value.这句话没有什么具体的意思，应该点出到底是什么value, by the way 我终于了解你上一段话的意思了！但是有几个问题:1,对于publicly owned wilderness area 的意思你似乎理解有误，2, 从逻辑上来说，既然你在开篇就提出了赞同的观点，接下去直接谈你赞同的分论点就好了，最后再小小批判一下。你采用的是一种先抑后扬的方式，但是没有处理好，会让人觉得思维没有条理。Like the nature reserve of the three rivers’ head source (TRH) which is the headspring of three main rivers in China, Yellow River, Yangtze River, and Lantsang River. When we just consider its pure instant economic value it is may be a barren land compared with plain, however it is the area that controls almost half of Chinese water resource and some rare species which have been extinction in other place.论点是很好的，但是你的论据有问题，还是对于关键词的理解，我就不多说了。 So when we add up all its value no matter how little number of people live there it is a treasure for the country that deserve preserving.

Even if there are not any other values now, we could not assert that the land will be always valueless. Take the Antarctic area as an example, when people first went there, the entire continent is just a huge adventure park for human beings until recent people find fluent petrol reserve under the thick ice cap. So maybe today we give up some seeming sterile land and in the future it is proved that it has prominent value.

To sum up, although the remote and little residents-hold areas may lack immediate economic value in most time it is also deserver the government governing because its responsibility for the country’s sovereign and the potential value the land hold and will hold.

主要问题我在文章里面说了，对于关键词的理解和文章段落的逻辑顺序问题。我的观点不一定正确，需要你自己继续思考，废话我就不多说了，给你推荐一个以前的帖子https://bbs.gter.net/thread-308478-1-2.html
合作愉快，不要生气哦。

baiyu_2005UID: 2255194

恩，是含义没有了解，下一次不会这么草率了。
至于第二段，不是经常由让步出现吗？